5 ms·
Federal Communications Commission scraps limit on broadcast TV ownership
- lenerdenator 2mo ago[flagged]
- mmmpetrichor 2mo agoFrom what I've read, its blatantly illegal. So probably will be undone by the courts in a few months. I wonder if anyone has a list of illegal things this white house has mandated that were overturned and rebuked by the courts soon after.
- altcognito 2mo agoIn an ideal world we would roll back to the 1996 telecommunications laws. (or something approximating a sensible approach to less narrow share of the broadcast spectrum) I think anybody with a gripe about "mainstream media" should really examine who owns most of the media (billionaires) and see the value in enforcing that more indepedent voices are heard, not less as the past three decades has been a relentless march towards. The whole idea with the advent of the internet was that there would be so many more ways to be heard. That's been kinda true, but the public airwaves are dominated by corporate voices.
- sophacles 2mo agoThe term of "mainstream media" is just a dogwhistle for old people and indoctrinated conspiracy theorists at this point. I mean one of the biggest users of it is Fox News (the biggest news channel by a lot). At this point its just as meaningless of a term as "liberal" and "socialist". It describes nothing other than a disagreement with the far right position.
- BigTTYGothGF 2mo agoI'd like to think a democratic president would have the appetite to do that.
- jibal 2mo agoThings like this can't be undone, any more than selling off public lands.
- lenerdenator 2mo agoThe public lands is a bit harder, but this? This you absolutely can undo. Tell the license holders to sell off stations or they won't get renewals. Failing that, have the DoJ do its actual job and sue under antitrust regulations, then actually enforce a penalty where the broadcaster is broken up. You can undo a lot of the damage, you just have to actually do it. We need to stop seeing these people as a group of participants in polite society, because they're not.
- magarnicle 2mo agoIf broadcast TV competition was just between stations, then maybe this is a bad thing. But no, they are now competing against Netflix et al. From my side of the pond this looks like a very outdated law that they've gotten rid of, though I understand the US TV market is pretty complex.
- trollbridge 2mo agoBroadcast TV seems laughably irrelevant. It’s difficult to find official numbers, but under 1% of US households have no cable, satellite TV, home Internet, or a cell phone. The latter two are how people consume video and TV to a large degree today. In exchange, we have a great deal of spectrum tied up for terrestrial TV, much of which goes to running infomercials or else is surreptitiously leased for terrestrial data broadcasts. And the government gets to decide to regulate it so it becomes inherently politicised - like favouring certain owners. Realistically - this spectrum should simply be reassigned for IP based services, with perhaps some set aside for non profit / educational uses, some for commercial, etc. (Radio is pretty much the same boat but I can see a case to be made for keeping some analog FM radio broadcasts. The 6MHz per channel for TV is insane.)
- dyauspitr 2mo ago> but under 1% of US households have no cable, satellite TV, home Internet, or a cell phone. Why are you bundling all those things together? The only thing we care about here is cable or satellite TV for your argument.
- eigencoder 2mo agoThose are all the things that replace broadcast TV
- dyauspitr 2mo agoWell, cell phones and home Internet theoretically also replace cable and satellite TV but that’s not really what you see in real life.
- eigencoder 2mo agoMy 70 year old grandpa just cancelled his satellite TV in favor of streaming :)
- mulmen 2mo agoThey replace it for delivery. That's not what this is about. The change discussed here is about content creation. That content is already delivered through multiple channels.
- freediddy 2mo agoI haven't watched broadcast TV in over a decade, except for live sports. I also haven't listened to broadcast radio in even longer. My teenage children don't know how to use the TV or radio. It's like someone telling me a company has a monopoly on the telephone lines; nostalgic for me but utterly useless in 2026.
- wombat-man 2mo agoI love being able to watch sports for free with my antenna. I hope that doesn't end for a long time.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- s0ss 2mo agomost people aren't hn readers. broadcast tv is far from useless in 2026, that's how many normies watch tv.
- sleepybrett 2mo agothis is all about allowing sinclair and their right wing ilk to own local news.
- throw0101d 2mo ago> this is all about allowing sinclair and their right wing ilk to own local news. From 2017, "Sinclair Broadcast Group: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)": * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc "John Oliver: Sinclair Broadcasting brings 'troubling' rightwing bias to local news": * https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/jul/03/john-oliver-sinclair-broadcasting-rightwing-news-fox https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/jul/03/john-ol... "John Oliver: How Sinclair Broadcast Group 'Brainwashes' Local News": * https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-news/john-oliver-how-sinclair-broadcast-group-brainwashes-local-news-630138/ https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-news/john-ol...
- 2mo ago
- sleepybrett 2mo agoof course they do. Prepare for sinclair to own everything.
- rdudek 2mo agoNexsar is taking over Tegna. Currently tied up in courts, but it's pretty much sinclair-like propaganda machine.
- kotaKat 2mo agoDon't forget Grey Media grabbing the rural circuit. We've been absorbed by Grey and lost so much local news programming while it gets replaced with "must run" soft story segments from a national "investigateTV" that runs bullshit soft stories for gullible yokels to feel that they're getting news. Meanwhile my local station (over 60 miles away) can't even run stories in the county they're supposed to cover; when presented stories and footage of rabies vaccine airdrops they'd rather run a story about some old lady watching their syndicated Mr. Food cooking segment they don't even produce for 40 years.
- magicalist 2mo agoNote that Tom Delay of all people (remember that guy? I'm old and I'd say barely) wrote an opposing op ed saying that even though he supports the change that this is contrary to the governing statute that he helped write, which explicitly bars the FCC from changing this limit https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/08/can-trump-fcc-repeal-39-tv-ownership-cap-republican-who-wrote-cap-into-law-says-no/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/08/can-trump-fcc-re...
- kurthr 2mo agoCrime is legal (if you're in the right group).
- hungryhobbit 2mo agoThere are plenty of things the Trump admin has done where that applies. This is (likely) not one of them. This idiocy hasn't had its day in court yet, but (especially given how the courts have turned against the administration in most cases recently) it seems highly likely this will be found to be illegal.
- alpha_squared 2mo agoThe courts haven't turned against the administration, they just don't care to rubber-stamp things that don't advance their personal policy goals and only erode trust in the courts. This advances their policy goals and that's scary.
- close04 2mo agoIs anyone else wondering if this is just a “cover crime” for the ragebait while the real crime was s happening behind the scenes, not getting any attention because this news is capturing all of it? They’re doing something so ridiculously obvious that it’s illegal so they can’t possibly think this is where they gain something. The gain must be somewhere else.
- conartist6 2mo ago
- jimkleiber 2mo agoI wish more people would play the game Monopoly and realize how much it can suck to live in a world full of monopolies.
- ilovetux 2mo agoDidn't the supreme court recently overturn the Chevron Doctrine? Doesn't that mean agencies like this are not free to set their own rules when a law is ambiguous? And isnt the cap on number of households reached actually codified unambiguously in federal law? Seems to me like this should not be allowed to happen. Let me know if I am wrong.
- Spooky23 2mo agoDon’t worry, the deeply principled conservative justices will never allow some random bureaucrats to legislate.
- YeahThisIsMe 2mo agoWell, you see, under the current administration, everything is allowed.
- curt15 2mo ago> Doesn't that mean agencies like this are not free to set their own rules when a law is ambiguous? Agencies can say whatever they want but courts are not required to defer to them when this inevitably goes to a lawsuit.
- ilovetux 2mo agoThanks. That actually makes it make more sense, chevron doctrine applied to courts and what they can/can't do. Edit: made applies past tense
- disposition2 2mo agoIf this Baltimore Sun article is accurate, it's worse than that as it sounds like the FCC is overriding a law passed by Congress and not just (re)setting a rule. > The 39% cap was established by Congress in 2004. 1. https://www.baltimoresun.com/2026/08/06/federal-communications-commission-rescinds-tv-ownership-rule-limiting-mergers/ https://www.baltimoresun.com/2026/08/06/federal-communicatio...
- 2mo ago
- thenthenthen 2mo agoIn the early 2000’s analog public TV broadcasts were turned off in the Netherlands. The only way to receive the publicly funded channels was through a commercial company requiring a subscription to a digital service. I learned a lot that time.
- CMay 2mo agoI do think this is an interesting topic. You can take the perspective that the government shouldn't have a monopoly on approving who can communicate over the airwaves so long as they aren't committing a crime and also shouldn't be able to outcompete companies trying to make a profit. At the same time, in a country with many competing localities, radio stations, public broadcast TV, university channels, etc like the US it is quite nice so long as it's balanced. I think in the US it is a legal requirement that any licensed broadcasts legally meet some bar as being "in service to the public". Many companies have a similar philosophy and see themselves as doing a good thing by serving the public, while running a sustainable business at the same time. Not all companies, though. That's not to say we haven't seen garbage broadcast over the airwaves that I wouldn't consider to be in service to the public, but on average it's alright. What was Netherlands' reasoning for doing this?
- thenthenthen 2mo agoNot sure what the reasoning is. I guess cost (disguised as ‘innovation) ? For me it is extremely weird that you now need to pay to receive national news, warnings etc that i payed for already through taxes.
- gcanyon 2mo agoWhat could possibly go wrong?
- 0xbadcafebee 2mo agoThis will be remembered in history as a major test of whether we turn from a Republic to an Empire. If the executive can successfully override Congressional law, it's no longer a democracy.
- SpicyLemonZest 2mo agoBrendan Carr will need to go to prison too, I suppose. There’s nothing in the universe of an argument for why he should be allowed to overturn the will of Congress here, he’s just a petty criminal who doesn’t think he has to follow the rules. 2029 is gonna be a tough year.
- programmertote 2mo agoHe will be pardoned by trump before the latter leaves the office. There will be LOTS of people pardoned by trump. I immigrated from a very poor, military-ruled country to the US more than 20 years ago. It is very sad to see the democratic system and the rule of law eroding in the US. All the mistakes that I observed and lived through in my former country are being practiced in the US these days.
- SpicyLemonZest 2mo agoRand Paul has solved that problem for us today; if Fauci can be prosecuted despite his pardon, so can the Trumpists. (Probably a win-win for him, I suppose, and I was never a fan of the pardon power in the first place.)
- londons_explore 2mo ago> In a 2-1 vote, the FCC repealed a 22-year-old rule holding that a company cannot own stations that reach more than a combined 39% of the U.S. television audience. This seems like a very odd rule. What about things like CNN? Aren't they available to 100% of households?
- warkdarrior 2mo agoThis is about over-the-air/broadcast stations (e.g., ABC/NBC/CBS affiliates), not cable stations like CNN.
- Finnucane 2mo agoThe FCC mainly regulates broadcast. CNN is cable. Also, there's a difference between a station being in more than 39% of households and being 39% of the total market. Other stations still compete with CNN.
- SpicyLemonZest 2mo agoBroadcast bandwidth is a limited resource, so it’s subject to special rules to ensure it’s fairly distributed in the public interest. It’s true that the rules aren’t nearly as important as they were when non-broadcast news was harder to find, although that doesn’t give the criminals in charge of the FCC a right to ignore the law.
- limagnolia 2mo agoThis does not seem to undo caps on ownership within broadcast markets, though? That seems like a more sensible cap to me. Of course, if Congress made the cap and didn't give authority to the FCC to adjust it, they shouldn't be trying. But I'm not familiar with the statutes involved.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 2mo ago48927851 | FCC to repeal 39% TV ownership cap in boost for Trump-friendly news orgs | https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/07/fcc-to-repeal-39-tv-ownership-cap-in-boost-for-trump-friendly-news-orgs/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/07/fcc-to-repeal-39... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48927851 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48927851
- brianbest101 2mo ago[dead]
- pyaamb 2mo agoA necessary tool to manufacture consent in the feudalist society we're speed running towards
- slater 2mo agoObligatory, if you haven't seen it yet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksb3KD6DfSI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksb3KD6DfSI
- harrouet 2mo agoThese laws, which exist in a similar way in Europe, intend to prevent media control by closed groups to take over democracy. To be honest, scraping them on broadcast TV will probably have little influence, even though in the wrong direction, because TV is no longer the media with the most influence. The real failure is that no one cared to regulate ownership of digital medias, i.e. social networks, Youtube, etc. These have shown documented examples of influencing elections directly.